A friend of my brother-in-law drowned pre-2000 in one of the midlands canals suffering from subsidence, too deep for the usual "stand up" solution to work and they couldn't find him in the muddy water. Not sure of the exact circumstances (BIL is now in Canada), drink may have been involved, but on a normal depth canal he'd probably have survived.

Thanks. But is the tax the same as it is on red diesel for heating so long as you can *prove* it's for heating?
I understand the problem is that most/all canal fuel suppliers won't want to keep two separate diesel tanks for red and white, so if they want to provide fuel for boats to travel on they'll only stock white diesel, which means boaters who use this for heating will pay more. But there's no other way to close the tax fiddle -- which is what it was -- which allowed people to propel their boats on red diesel.

Don't houses use heavier fuel oil, not diesel?
Also I thought that the new regulations still allowed low-tax red fuel for boat heating so long as it's in a separate tank? What they don't allow any longer is buying low-tax fuel, putting it in one tank, claiming without real proof that you're using it for heating, then using it for propulsion.
On the EU RCD laws yes it is a big IF but I think that's what happened (I'd love more info from somebody who knows more), which has more basis in fact than your "it's the EU's fault" claim. But if I'm wrong I'll happily admit it 😉

No I'm not going to say that about red diesel, because I believe in facts not things written in the Daily Mail. You could also say that all they did was close a historical tax loophole which was unfairly advantageous to UK boaters who in reality paid less tax on fuel for heating than people in houses, and of course UK boaters didn't like this -- but maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here...
We could/should have asked for generators (and hybrid drives, and diesel-electrics, and...) to be included if we actually wanted to deal with emissions in a way that was fair to everybody. What the rules read as is that our politicians (who don't really understand the problem) asked for a couple of badly-thought out exemptions which turn out to be unclear and open to misinterpretation/rule-bending, and that's exactly what we got. If that's what happened, I can't see how that can possibly be the EU's fault...
Maybe, but IIRC it was the UK who specifically asked for the exemptions, partly driven by the narrowboat community. Am I wrong?

All restrictions related to Covid-19 are by definition catch-all, and there will always be some people (or businesses) unfairly disadvantaged by them, that's the nature of restrictions. Given that the only alternative which doesn't unfairly disadvantage anybody is no restrictions and hundreds of thousands of deaths (who you'd have to say are pretty disadvantaged as a consequence), perhaps people should acknowledge that this is just something they'll have to put up with for the time being?
Not suggesting that the government couldn't have done better, but just whining "it's not fair on me..." is a bit selfish given the death tolls...

Let me guess, you're not a fan of the EU and love blaming them for everything including banning bendy bananas and conkers against the will of the plucky Brits... 😉
There's no reason whatsoever the EU would have objected to clear well-drafted logical exceptions like I proposed, they make far more sense than the current ones and have less wiggle room for evasion. If we got rubbish laws, that's very probably because that's exactly what we asked for, the EU said yes, and we agreed. Whose fault would that be?
Credit (or blame) where credit (or blame) is due...
[I suspect there are people on this forum who know exactly what happened, let's see if they want to chime in and confirm which of us is correct...]

Was it really the EU's fault, or our home-grown bunch of idiots? I thought the exceptions for replica/old boats were proposed by the UK government at the behest of UK boat owners, in which case we got what our own politicians agreed to...

This is an example of idiotic rulemaking at its finest. If the aim is to reduce emissions/pollution (perfectly valid) it shouldn't matter whether the engine drives directly or via a generator or via batteries or is a standalone generator, in a new boat it should meet the emissions regulations. If there's going to be an exception for genuine replicas (similar engine/hull/construction to a historic boat) then this should only apply to a propulsion system similar to the original, which means no electric motor or massive generator in a narrowboat -- but you can fit a Bolinder if you can find one 😉
If you want to then make the possibly legitimate case that they might have fitted a generator in later years, then this should count as a modern add-on which would have to meet the latest emissions laws (if it's a new generator), just like on modern boats. If you're allowed to fit an old existing non-compliant generator then this should apply to both, ditto if you're not.
If the rules had been written like this then both the intention and the letter of the law would have been clear and there would be little ground for people to argue or try and evade them. Instead they've served up a self-contradictory mess which people will try and find loopholes in... 😞

Maybe it depends whether you think you can do more good -- and effect more change -- by being inside the tent piss*ing out than outside the tent piss*ing in.
If somebody doesn't like the House of Lords -- or more specifically, what it does and how it does it -- some might say that it's better to join it and then try and push for positive change -- and perhaps use your influence as a Lord, which exists whether people like it or not, to do some good -- than stand there whinging about how undemocratic it is... 😉
Or you could just grab the title because you want to be called "Sir".
Either motive is possible, and I'm sure both have happened for different people. So your point is not proved at all...
[would anyone say Alf Dubs hasn't tried to use his position to do some really positive things?]